Pyroclastic Cloud?

[BigBird]

This has come up a few times in my research, and have never gotten any explaination as to what the truthers are trying to prove with this, or how it is relevant to the collapse at all....

"...an Astrophysicist that worked for NASA for almost 40yrs stated "the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverised dust and the debris and steel beams being hurled horizontally make me absolutely positive that explosives were involved..."

Since when has the term pyroclastic been used to describe anything other than volcanos? Is there any merit to the "pyroclastic cloud" argument?

[Arus808]

basically, they are saying that the "cloud of dust" looks like a "pyroclastic cloud" but are also attributing the "aspects" of a PC to the cloud dust as the buildings collapse as well.

its stupid I know, since the characteristics of a pC involves a MUCH faster rate of descent, and HIGH TEMPERATURES. if what they say is true, all the buildings around the WTC towers would have suffered MAJOR damage and all the people around there for a 4 mile radius would have been cooked.

[Brainster]

I've noticed that Richard Gage has recently dropped the pyroclastic term in his speeches, in favor of "cauliflower-like".

It's your basic argument from incredulity: I don't believe the dust clouds should look like that. Of course, Gage goes on to claim that these types of dust clouds appear in controlled demolition, therefore this is a point of similarity between what happened at the WTC and a CD. Guess what, though? Any sudden, rapid collapse is going to stir up a great deal of dust and create asymmetrical wind patterns.

[alienentity]

Tony Szamboti uses exactly that term to describe all three collapses in this interview:

http://www.bomb-mp3.com/download.php?mp3_id=860874&title=Kevin+Barrett+-+Tony+Szamboti+%26amp%3B+Rolf+Lindgren

[alienentity]

I've noticed that Richard Gage has recently dropped the pyroclastic term in his speeches, in favor of "cauliflower-like".

It's your basic argument from incredulity: I don't believe the dust clouds should look like that. Of course, Gage goes on to claim that these types of dust clouds appear in controlled demolition, therefore this is a point of similarity between what happened at the WTC and a CD. Guess what, though? Any sudden, rapid collapse is going to stir up a great deal of dust and create asymmetrical wind patterns.

btw, as you'll notice shortly, I've linked to your blog (again!) with regard to Barrett and Szamboti on Ryan Mackey's new hardfire thread.

I was stunned by the outrageous statements of Mr. Barrett. Thanks for posting them on your site.

[MG1962]

To be really really pendantic it could qualify as a pyroclastic surge - However I think a billowing debris laden dust cloud does just fine

[Wildy]

There has never been any merit to this "pyroclastic flow" nonsense.

What you're seeing here is just an argument based on pictures. "It looks like a pyroclastic flow, therefore it is."

I'm guessing the rationale behind it has something to do with it being evidence for explosives being used, because they don't seem to think that there is any other way for the cloud of dust and stuff to have appeared.

The funny thing is that in some cases the "truthers" seem to believe that a "pyroclastic flow" can only form through the use of explosives. I know that I've taken it to the silly conclusion that a volcanic eruption (like Mt. St. Helens) must have been an inside job because of that assumption.

Basically the easiest way to disprove the argument is just look into what a pyroclastic flow is.

First and foremost is that it only applies to volcanoes.

The second is that if it was indeed a pyroclastic flow, anyone who didn't manage to get far enough away from the site of the towers would have been killed instantly due to the temperature. The numbers don't match up to what would be the proper death toll if it were a pyroclastic flow.

We are talking of a flow that would, at maximum be at least 1000°C, and if it was a "cold" one 250°C. Anyone caught in that cloud would be fried. According to Wikipedia a "cold" flow killed 30 000 people in Saint-Pierre in Martinique in 1902. Then you would have to take into account the speed. Pyroclastic flows can reach up to 700 km/h, meaning pretty much everyone in New York City and also in the surrounding area would have been killed.


Lastly, your quote is an appeal to authority. You've got your Astrophysicist, a job known for intelligence; NASA, a prestigious organisation; and a time (40 years) which is suggesting experience. The astrophysicist is unnamed it seems, so said person might not actually exist. I don't know how qualified an astrophysicist is when it comes to telling us how a building should collapse though.

[Gravy]

To be really really pendantic it could qualify as a pyroclastic surgeI disagree. The "pyro" element was quite small in the WTC dust clouds and was limited to the area where the heaviest debris fell. As would be expected, there were many reports of hot debris/air immediately around the towers but not blocks away.


- However I think a billowing debris laden dust cloud does just fineYeah. What's really sad is seeing truthers like Jim Hoffman make extravagant claims and wild guesses about the source of this "pyroclastic" flow, and never stopping to calculate – or even to consider – the role of air pressure in the collapse of buildings that were over a quarter of a mile high. They also neglect to mention that the second collapse kicked up the dust from the first, and the collapse of WTC 7 kicked up the dust from the previous collapses (including the 22-story WTC 3).

The "700 km/hr" cited by Wildy (and I've seen it cited elsewhere) strikes me as being nonsensical. What mechanism would produce such speeds?

My video take on this pyroclastic silliness is here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#29m49s), with an image showing the damage that can be expected from an actual pyroclastic flow.

[MG1962]

I disagree. The "pyro" element was quite small in the WTC dust clouds and was limited to the area where the heaviest debris fell. As would be expected, there were many reports of hot debris/air immediately around the towers but not blocks away.

Thats why I was saying I was being very pendantic. Pyroclastic surges have a much lower material to air ratio and can be as cool as 50c Very uncomfortable, but very survivable


The "700 km/hr" cited by Wildy (and I've seen it cited elsewhere) strikes me as being nonsensical. What mechanism would produce such speeds?
[/quote]

I am not sure if you are refering to WTC specifically, or as a general observation of volcanic activity. I do know one pyroclastic flow from Vesusvius went nearly 75 miles out to sea before disapating. Clearly such energy sources were not even close to being represented at ground zero. If they had, they would not be cleaning up New York, they would be rebuilding it somewhere else.

[BigBird]

There has never been any merit to this "pyroclastic flow" nonsense.

What you're seeing here is just an argument based on pictures. "It looks like a pyroclastic flow, therefore it is."

I'm guessing the rationale behind it has something to do with it being evidence for explosives being used, because they don't seem to think that there is any other way for the cloud of dust and stuff to have appeared.

The funny thing is that in some cases the "truthers" seem to believe that a "pyroclastic flow" can only form through the use of explosives. I know that I've taken it to the silly conclusion that a volcanic eruption (like Mt. St. Helens) must have been an inside job because of that assumption.

Basically the easiest way to disprove the argument is just look into what a pyroclastic flow is.

First and foremost is that it only applies to volcanoes.

The second is that if it was indeed a pyroclastic flow, anyone who didn't manage to get far enough away from the site of the towers would have been killed instantly due to the temperature. The numbers don't match up to what would be the proper death toll if it were a pyroclastic flow.

We are talking of a flow that would, at maximum be at least 1000°C, and if it was a "cold" one 250°C. Anyone caught in that cloud would be fried. According to Wikipedia a "cold" flow killed 30 000 people in Saint-Pierre in Martinique in 1902. Then you would have to take into account the speed. Pyroclastic flows can reach up to 700 km/h, meaning pretty much everyone in New York City and also in the surrounding area would have been killed.


Lastly, your quote is an appeal to authority. You've got your Astrophysicist, a job known for intelligence; NASA, a prestigious organisation; and a time (40 years) which is suggesting experience. The astrophysicist is unnamed it seems, so said person might not actually exist. I don't know how qualified an astrophysicist is when it comes to telling us how a building should collapse though.

LOVE the video, and thanks for the post. Very informative!

[BigBird]

There has never been any merit to this "pyroclastic flow" nonsense.

What you're seeing here is just an argument based on pictures. "It looks like a pyroclastic flow, therefore it is."

I'm guessing the rationale behind it has something to do with it being evidence for explosives being used, because they don't seem to think that there is any other way for the cloud of dust and stuff to have appeared.

The funny thing is that in some cases the "truthers" seem to believe that a "pyroclastic flow" can only form through the use of explosives. I know that I've taken it to the silly conclusion that a volcanic eruption (like Mt. St. Helens) must have been an inside job because of that assumption.

Basically the easiest way to disprove the argument is just look into what a pyroclastic flow is.

First and foremost is that it only applies to volcanoes.

The second is that if it was indeed a pyroclastic flow, anyone who didn't manage to get far enough away from the site of the towers would have been killed instantly due to the temperature. The numbers don't match up to what would be the proper death toll if it were a pyroclastic flow.

We are talking of a flow that would, at maximum be at least 1000°C, and if it was a "cold" one 250°C. Anyone caught in that cloud would be fried. According to Wikipedia a "cold" flow killed 30 000 people in Saint-Pierre in Martinique in 1902. Then you would have to take into account the speed. Pyroclastic flows can reach up to 700 km/h, meaning pretty much everyone in New York City and also in the surrounding area would have been killed.


Lastly, your quote is an appeal to authority. You've got your Astrophysicist, a job known for intelligence; NASA, a prestigious organisation; and a time (40 years) which is suggesting experience. The astrophysicist is unnamed it seems, so said person might not actually exist. I don't know how qualified an astrophysicist is when it comes to telling us how a building should collapse though.

Thanks for the post. Very interesting and helpful!

[~enigma~]

"...an Astrophysicist that worked for NASA for almost 40yrs stated "the huge pyroclastic cloud of pulverised dust and the debris and steel beams being hurled horizontally make me absolutely positive that explosives were involved..."
Citation please.

[~enigma~]

To be really really pendantic it could qualify as a pyroclastic surge - However I think a billowing debris laden dust cloud does just fine
It could? Ok then what are the pyroclasts?

[Bobert]

Aldo after a buffet?













I will be here all week....

[Pink Booties]

You people dissin' the meteoric rise of the pyroclastic cloud, you better recognize.
9/11 was an inside job, etc. Can't you people see facts? Factless JREFers. Sheesh.

[Bobert]

That would be J****'ers please try harder in the future!

[BigBird]

Citation please.

Quoted from an idiot from another forum.... Here is the link I believe he is referring to:

www scribd com/doc/7646792/Seven-Senior-Federal-Engineers-and-Scientists-Call-for-New-911-Investigation

Cant post links yet... insert . where spaces are.

[leftysergeant]

The dust clouds are absolutely not pyroclastic, and are not formed by the explosives themselves, but by the mechanical action of the falling building materials slamming together with incredible energy. They occur in every CD because every CD causes breakable material to slam into breakable material. This is clearly demonstrated in the Balzac-Vitry demolition in which we know that no explosives were used, and yet exactly the same kind of dust was created and behaved exactly the same way.

If we must compare the dust cloud behavior to another, commonly known phenomenon, I would say that there is about a 99.9% match between the dust flow and a "turbidity flow."

[BigBird]

The dust clouds are absolutely not pyroclastic, and are not formed by the explosives themselves, but by the mechanical action of the falling building materials slamming together with incredible energy. They occur in every CD because every CD causes breakable material to slam into breakable material. This is clearly demonstrated in the Balzac-Vitry demolition in which we know that no explosives were used, and yet exactly the same kind of dust was created and behaved exactly the same way.

If we must compare the dust cloud behavior to another, commonly known phenomenon, I would say that there is about a 99.9% match between the dust flow and a "turbidity flow."

Man, I love this forum... So much great info here... Thanks for the post!

One thing I was anticipating in further discussions on the subject was the same cloud effect coming from CD's with explosives used, and was figuring how to explain it, but it seems that a CD with no explosives seems to be the perfect answer to the question. I'll have to check it out!

[leftysergeant]

Balzac-Vitry is discussed on this subforum at some length, but I cannot remember right off the top of my head in which thread. Can anybody direct BB to the right one? The video is really an effective argument.

[T.A.M.]

Quoted from an idiot from another forum.... Here is the link I believe he is referring to:

www scribd com/doc/7646792/Seven-Senior-Federal-Engineers-and-Scientists-Call-for-New-911-Investigation

Cant post links yet... insert . where spaces are.

based on the wording, I am guessing (without going to the link) that it is simply a repost of Allan Miller's bullcrap "Patriots Question 9/11" sites.

TAM:)

[BigBird]

based on the wording, I am guessing (without going to the link) that it is simply a repost of Allan Miller's bullcrap "Patriots Question 9/11" sites.

TAM:)

Going back to the link, it seems you are correct... :)

[parky76]

Since when has the term pyroclastic been used to describe anything other than volcanos? Is there any merit to the "pyroclastic cloud" argument?

"Pyroclastic rocks or pyroclastics (derived from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) πῦρ, meaning fire; and κλαστός, meaning broken) are clastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clastic) rocks composed solely or primarily of volcanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic) materials. "

clearly, the cloud of dust at the WTC was NOT..pyroclastic.

that's unless there is a hidden volcano in lower Manhattan.

just shows how incredibly stupid some truthers can actually be.

[R.Mackey]

A pyroclastic flow can only be said to be thus if the fluid motion is driven by heat, not merely by gravity or buoyancy. This did not occur at the World Trade Center. Simple as that.

[Wildy]

The "700 km/hr" cited by Wildy (and I've seen it cited elsewhere) strikes me as being nonsensical. What mechanism would produce such speeds?

I don't know what the mechanism is, because I'm not a volcanologist.

All I'm aware is that it is the upper observed limit.

[Grizzly Bear]

If 700 km/hr is an upper bound the driving mechanism would be the eruption itself (much like it was for Mt. Saint Helens), as the distance increases though the flow becomes progressively more gravity driven. The distinct difference aside from the obvious temperature difference is the shear kinetic energy involved... a volcano eruption on such a vastly different scale and can generate blast pressures on magnitudes far far greater than any collapsing building can

[Hokulele]

I don't think anyone has posted this link yet, but the following thread pretty much dissects the origin of this particular myth, and shows why it really should be classified as "busted". Thanks to leftysergeant for the sleuthing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3530735#post3530735

[Juniversal]

Pyroclastic flow was never an appropriate term to describe the dust cloud or the contents of the dust cloud. Nor is it ever a product of controlled demolition. It was simply a term that was malapplied to the dust cloud and continued to be parroted by the gullible truthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

^...I always throught this video (which I actually found in an archived jref thread after doing a google search) was a good example of a building collapse (not involving explosives) that has the analogous dust cloud.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, to be specific: It was used as an analogy by various legitimate scientists in references to the billowing dust cloud and then malappropriated to truther ends. Hokulele's link is a good read about this term's misuse by the conspiracy peddlers.

[newton3376]

I don't think anyone has posted this link yet, but the following thread pretty much dissects the origin of this particular myth, and shows why it really should be classified as "busted". Thanks to leftysergeant for the sleuthing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3530735#post3530735

Good link.....

So the guy who came up with this crap was an electrical engineer?

Please tell me he wasn't an EE.....